Judge Rules on Oregon Equal Protection Case

Abstract

In the article “Equal Protection Claim Gets a Foothold in Oregon,” published in the November 2012 issue of Planning & Environmental Law, I previously reported on David Hill Development v. Forest Grove, where a jury found that by delaying issuance of a final subdivision approval, the City of Forest Grove violated the Takings Clause, including a temporary taking; the Equal Protection Clause; and the Substantive and Procedural elements of the Due Process Clause. Without any accompanying written explanation for the verdict, the jury awarded David Hill $6.5 million in damages. The article speculated about the bases for this decision, focusing largely on the Equal Protection component. In October 2012, responding to a motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdict, the judge largely upheld the jury's decision, in a 78-page written opinion. The only modification was with regard to David Hill's claim that the city' property dedication obligations or exactions imposed a taking. This opinion is summarized here to provide a more full and complete picture of the outcome.